Monday, October 15, 2018

Since I’m hinting at it, here’s my shameless plug: if you can sit through four hours of football and its stoppage time, you can’t justify calling baseball boring. October belongs to America’s pastime. I feel that this whole landscape will look different a decade from now, with football at the lower half of the totem pole.

My opinion isn’t entirely biased. This issue with politics bleeding into the discussion is a serious crutch for an otherwise praised NFL, and until that’s no longer a factor, people are going to shift away. The NBA waters are nice these days too, I’m hearing.

(As always, views expressed in the article lede and comments are the views of the individual commenters and the submitter of the article and do not represent the views of Baseball Think Factory or its owner.)

Reader Comments and Retorts

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

I remember renting a car from Albany to take to Cooperstown and back that didn't have the transponder. With through all of the tolls without paying and never got charged or a notice but that was over 10 years ago.

That toll is less than a dollar... round trip. You couldn't be bothered to use the non-EZpass lanes?

European opinion seems to be split on whether big losses by the CSU in Bavaria yesterday mean a repudiation of Angela Merkel's policies (the CSU is the Bavarian partner of her Christian Democratic party), or a vindication of Merkel (because the CSU lost big-time after tacking sharply to the right recently). Both could be true, as parties to both the right and left of the CSU made gains. There is another state election in Hesse in a couple of weeks, but in the meantime, a Brexit summit meeting this week will get a lot of attention: though the likelihood is that this meeting will just defer real decisions till some later summit.

the opinions expressed here probably centre at the typical educated white people who're conservative-ish but fleeing from the reactionaries, overall. Probably, given the context, with a higher interest in whether positions asserted in ideology are actually true (though we're hardly perfectly there). Individuals vary, of course.

As I put it last thread, the predominant ideology, grounded in capitalism, is to compartmentalize Trump's insults, to ignore how Pocahontas whitewashes English-Indian relations and disappears genocide, and even when admitting the facts of conquest, to cleave the long history of Indian hating as having any relation to us today.

It's quite clearly only random coincident that the gathering of fine young "Proud Boy" white nationalists that violently assaulted people in the streets were all flashing the "it's an OK sign, not a white nationalist signal" hand sign in this article's embedded video.

The NYPD has reversed course, and will now charge 9 Proud Boys with assault (after its members beat up protesters following a meeting at the Metropolitan Republican Club

Previous McInnes speeches in New York have been marked by violence. In February 2017, New York University’s College Republican club invited McInnes to speak on campus, and 11 people were arrested in fights outside the event, including Proud Boy Salvatore Cipolla, who attacked a journalist covering the event.

McInnes frequently champions violence, particularly against the left.

“I want violence, I want punching in the face. I’m disappointed in Trump supporters for not punching enough,” McInnes said on his webshow.

On another occasion, he called for an attack on a woman.

“This woman — yes I’m advocating violence against women — this woman should be punched in the face. Shouldn’t be by a man, maybe by another woman, her twin sister, should just punch her in the face. Or maybe mace her. Yeah. I’m pro-free speech, I don’t want her ever to be censored, but this woman needs to experience a little bit of violence.”

McInnes also uses his show to spout racial slurs, especially the n-word, and call for attacks on transgender people. “Choke a tranny. Get your fingers around the windpipe,” McInnes said on his show, according to Newsweek. A self-described misogynist, McInnes has argued against women in the workforce and claimed sexual harassment does not exist.

15 years ago, we had "free speech zones".

Given the popularity of the Purge movie franchise, and the fine people on both sides - I think I might be inclined to support the creation of Limited Law Zones.

I'd say just ensure anyone who enters such places has no firearms or blades... and I'd be OK just rooting for the antifas to beat the crap out of some proud boys and call it a day.

As I put it last thread, the predominant ideology, grounded in capitalism, is to compartmentalize Trump's insults, to ignore how Pocahontas whitewashes English-Indian relations and disappears genocide, and even when admitting the facts of conquest, to cleave the long history of Indian hating as having any relation to us today.

You can claim this, but since there's no evidence any of it's true, you can't expect people to agree to it. Merely having righteous goals doesn't cause facts to blink in or out of existence.

Indeed, if Trump's facts were right (okay, unlikely, but blind squirrels, stopped clocks, etc.), it'd be pretty easier to bandy about some buzzwords and jargon to attack white people who claim Indian ancestry as whitewashing, rewriting history, etc. etc.

When they got enough evidence from the videos, they made arrests. Anyone who thinks the NYPD was simply arresting the wannabe brownshirts while buying cupcakes for the wannabe blackshirts shouldn't be taken seriously.

It's truly hard to understand why groups who are routinely beaten, incarcerated and killed by police forces nationwide might not have absolute faith that a call to 911 would be in their best interests.

One can refuse to call the police if they like, but you can't complain the police won't do anything when people won't talk to them. What was Davo hoping for? The police to arrest a random bunch of preppy looking men and fabricate some evidence?

Extreme heatwaves and droughts will increasingly damage the global barley crop, meaning a common ingredient of the world’s favourite alcoholic beverage will become scarcer. Key brewing nations are forecast to be among the worst hit, including Belgium, the Czech Republic and Ireland.

Angela Merkel and the CDU have been on top of the German government for a long, long time. In a truly robust democracy, it would be entirely understandable for voters to lack enthusiasm for any person or party that has been in power for that long. But how much of what is happening is that voter fatigue and how much of it ties in to the worldwide rise of the nationalist (and in some places fascist) right? For that matter, who are the AfD, anyway? Are they as dangerous to democracy as the parties now running Poland and Hungary?

One can refuse to call the police if they like, but you can't complain the police won't do anything when people won't talk to them. What was Davo hoping for? The police to arrest a random bunch of preppy looking men and fabricate some evidence?

One can refuse to call the police if they like, but you can't complain the police won't do anything when people won't talk to them. What was Davo hoping for? The police to arrest a random bunch of preppy looking men and fabricate some evidence?

One might also say that despite monumental efforts to claim that the blackshirts, antifa, and anarchists are routinely tied to the "left", perhaps they are not... and this is part and parcel of the problem.

The "right" likes to pretend fellows like the Proud Boys have nothing to do with them... while also pretending the other sorts are elements of the "left".

So - IOW - maybe the left, advocating for the Proud Boy arrests, are not actually as in consort with and a part of the people who brawled with them.

This is ultimately the Charlottesville problem writ large.

The "left" is basically forced to own everyone who happens to be on the "other side" of any given matter... while the "right" gets to pick and choose. Despite the fact that the "right" now is led by a guy who is far more sympathetic and kindred with the worst element of that side of the great binary divide than any real leader on the "left" is with the inverse. Indeed, these same elements on the nominal far "left" were still rioting and whatnot against any and all Democrats, too.

So, #### it... if the great binary sorting is upon us, might as well just go with your rooting interests. Even if those rooting interests amount to nothing more than "I dislike the people they beat up MORE than the ones doing the beating".

Not my cup of tea to link arms with them or otherwise march beside them... but sure... if certain elements are going to claim they proxy for me? Might as well root for them to "win".

It is, and it's exhausting. The true believers will talk of a renewal and a "new cycle" and as soon as one election is tallied the work starts on the next one. It's endless and at times can utterly consume your life. But the rewards and thrills are great. I'd compare the upper levels, at least as a campaign director, to high level sports coaching.

I was just reading about this on reddit - he said he'd donate $1 million to charity if she took the test and proved "she was an Indian" (paraphrased). Which remains open to debate.

The comment was made in the context of how Trump would debate Warren in a hypothetical future presidential debate - saying he'd pounce on her claim to be Native American by producing a DNA testing kit. So, in addition to arguing that being between 1/64th and 1/1024th Native American, at best, doesn't make one an American Indian within the normal meaning of the term, there's also the matter of the conditions precedent not being satisfied. There's no real claim on any money here, just political sparring.

One can refuse to call the police if they like, but you can't complain the police won't do anything when people won't talk to them. What was Davo hoping for? The police to arrest a random bunch of preppy looking men and fabricate some evidence?

Yes?

I'm guessing he was hoping specifically that they'd scoop up Kavanaugh.

It is, and it's exhausting. The true believers will talk of a renewal and a "new cycle" and as soon as one election is tallied the work starts on the next one. It's endless and at times can utterly consume your life. But the rewards and thrills are great. I'd compare the upper levels, at least as a campaign director, to high level sports coaching.

Meh, parties change. Party fortunes change.

But as a lefty?

The entire course of human history has been a - admittedly, sometimes glacial - drift towards the left. On every single item I care about - public/governmental care for citizenry, equality on race, gender, and sexual orientation, capital vs labor.... you name it.

The long view says the left is on a winning streak that, at least in the US - is unbroken. Seasons are long - and there are certainly setbacks and losses here and there.

who are the AfD, anyway? Are they as dangerous to democracy as the parties now running Poland and Hungary?

At least as dangerous, is my impression. The AfD's power base is in the East, especially in Saxony, where xenophobia runs high (precisely because there aren't many immigrants there, as in some parts of the Midwest and Appalachia in this country). The AfD also channels a certain amount of longing for authoritarian days in the DDR; the "horseshoe" of the far-right converging with the old communists. Their key resemblance to the dominant parties in Poland and Hungary is nationalism, but so far German nationalism is as unpopular a notion in a lot of parts of West Germany as it ever was. That regional difference has made AfD much less of a threat than the Polish or Hungarian nationalists, who have more comprehensive support, so to see AfD make gains in Bavaria is alarming.

Angela Merkel and the CDU have been on top of the German government for a long, long time. In a truly robust democracy, it would be entirely understandable for voters to lack enthusiasm for any person or party that has been in power for that long. But how much of what is happening is that voter fatigue and how much of it ties in to the worldwide rise of the nationalist (and in some places fascist) right? For that matter, who are the AfD, anyway? Are they as dangerous to democracy as the parties now running Poland and Hungary?

One of the problems with German politics at the moment is that the other party that would normally be competing with the CDU is the SPD. But they've been in a grand coalition for the past few years. It was generally assumed that the SPD would go into opposition after these last elections because (as you say) it's not really healthy to have a permanent government. The SPD as a party has been dying slowly, in part because it's much tougher to carve out a party identity when you're the junior partner in a coalition than when you are the opposition. But no one's forming a government with AfD, and it was too tough to hammer out a coalition with the minor parties, we have ourselves another grand coalition. Sweden might be moving to a grand coalition too, since no one wants to work with the Sweden Democrats.

I think voter fatigue and the rise of extremist parties are mutually reinforcing elements. Your tired of seeing the same old parties in charge, which leads to votes for alternative parties, which in turn leads to grand coalitions between the mainstream parties (since its too difficult to cobble together coalitions out of single issue/narrowly focused/extremist parties). So voter fatigue produces an outcome that just fosters more voter fatigue.

I think European politics right now is an unfortunate combination of (on the one hand) of a real crisis around the issue of nationhood/immigration/multi-culturalism, (and on the other) a political system that works against actually dealing with the crisis. I tend to be pretty optimistic, so it's not all doom and gloom, but there is a danger that the end of the story is voter fatigue that gets so bad Europeans stop believing in democracy. Which would be a bad outcome.

Sure, or you could resist the great binary sorting. Ideology is largely a stupid way to govern. There will probably always be political ideologues, flat earthers, anti-vaxxers, young earthers, hollow earthers, homeopathists, astrologers, etc. But, you shouldn't look at them as a side.

The comment was made in the context of how Trump would debate Warren in a hypothetical future presidential debate - saying he'd pounce on her claim to be Native American by producing a DNA testing kit.

I'm reasonably sure there'd be a well rehearsed line about her being proud of all of her heritage, unlike the Drumpfs. ;)

The comment was made in the context of how Trump would debate Warren in a hypothetical future presidential debate - saying he'd pounce on her claim to be Native American by producing a DNA testing kit.

She should bring a scale. If he weighs under 239lb she can donate $1 million to Richard Simmons.

Sure, or you could resist the great binary sorting. Ideology is largely a stupid way to govern. There will probably always be political ideologues, flat earthers, anti-vaxxers, young earthers, hollow earthers, homeopathists, astrologers, etc. But, you shouldn't look at them as a side.

In a world without Donald Trump as President, I'd agree.

We don't live in that world anymore.

Not my fault.... WOULD BE if it happened to be a Democratic carnie or even just a lefty carnie who won a Democratic presidential primary, even with just a plurality of the vote, and then won the Presidency -- even with some Democrats who... harumph harumph, don't like the ##### grabbing and the Mexican blood taint and everything else... but quickly fell into line and regularly trumpeted the slate of judicial nominees who would have been likely nominees from any Democratic President anyway.

It's like Art's idea that our empire is the best empire evah. Like that story's already written with a happy end.

I don't buy that either.

I mean, I couch it in US context simply because that's the context I was born into - and whether I die here or abroad, is almost certain to be the context I die in.

But, if we want to expand it globally?

Sure... the same holds true. In the grand scheme of things, the entirety of human existence and governance has been a leftward march.

On all three of the pillars I mentioned -- government responsibility towards the public, various matters of equality, and capital vs labor.... Left, left, left.

The fact that the occasional stutter step or outlier - yes, often corrected with great amounts of blood and suffering - exists doesn't change that. Even the the fact that corrections to those stutter steps have sometimes gone waaaay off course doesn't change that.

I hate the NYPD and wish they had stayed out of this. We know what Rikers Island does to good people, can you imagine what it’ll do to the Proud Boys? It’s not gonna push them back towards empathy, I’ll tell you that much.

Because your goal shouldn't be to fight Trump, it should be to have good and effective governance. Sure, those goals may often coincide, but that shouldn't be the point. In the very short term, it's maybe a good bet, but it falls apart quickly. And in places where both progressive and reactionary ideology propose wrong/ineffective solutions to problems.

Because your goal shouldn't be to fight Trump, it should be to have good and effective governance. Sure, those goals may often coincide, but that shouldn't be the point. In the very short term, it's maybe a good bet, but it falls apart quickly. And in places where both progressive and reactionary ideology propose wrong/ineffective solutions to problems.

Eat what is on your plate before you start browsing the menu for the next course.

Months ago we had a talk about some semi-anarchist professor's history of early humanity, which was represented as a march rightward - basically that the rise of agriculture was really what first led to large scale inequality, slavery and such. It was an interesting argument.

Months ago we had a talk about some semi-anarchist professor's history of early humanity, which was represented as a march rightward - basically that the rise of agriculture was really what first led to large scale inequality, slavery and such. It was an interesting argument.

From an anarchist perspective?

I could see that...

But I would say that the libertarians own the anarchists more than I.

I've got no beef with society, culture, community, government - and all of these things melding into a modern concept thereof. Why, I might even borrow from apocryphal Churchill and say it's the least bad option.

Regardless, I like the things modern government and society have afforded me more than the occasional reactionary backslide they allow.

Just a month ago, rather than being blocked from entering his apartment and then dealing with the police showing up to question why he was there, this guy would have had a cop 'accidentally' break into his apartment and kill him.

Because your goal shouldn't be to fight Trump, it should be to have good and effective governance. Sure, those goals may often coincide, but that shouldn't be the point. In the very short term, it's maybe a good bet, but it falls apart quickly. And in places where both progressive and reactionary ideology propose wrong/ineffective solutions to problems.

In theory yes, but over the course of my lifetime the conservative option in the US (GOP obviously) has steadily moved away from my beliefs. Some of that has been changes in me, but most is on the other side. I used to support a fair number of GOP policies, but with the rise of protectionism on the right I can't think of a single (non trivial) thing the GOP affirmatively supports that I am for.

Someday they may get back to personal responsibility, honesty, free trade, limited but effective government and so on and away from plutocratic theft, pollution, religion, and xenophobia and then I will likely find some Republicans to vote for, but that time is not this year and next year is not looking good either.

We live, by definition, by our ethics today, and it's hard to see how you wouldn't look at history as at least a vague path that arrived at today. Almost regardless of what our ethics will be in the 24th century, history will have been a path in that direction.

And I somehow suspect "all of history" referred to here means pretty much "The West, since the 1700s".

I mean, 64 is very close to what I'd say, except I'd call "beliefs" a dirty word, and replace it with something like "the demonstrated effective techniques of governance". I don't think there are really any policies of the Trump government that've been wise (except perhaps, allowing big game trophy hunters to take trophies from where it's legal? I can't think of any other examples.) But that's still starting with "Is this a good idea?" before moving on to "Who says they'll try to do this?"

We live, by definition, by our ethics today, and it's hard to see how you wouldn't look at history as at least a vague path that arrived at today. Almost regardless of what our ethics will be in the 24th century, history will have been a path in that direction.

And I somehow suspect "all of history" referred to here means pretty much "The West, since the 1700s".

I wouldn't say that, either.

I mean, yeah - by virtue of my context and education, it is most certainly that of which I am most familiar.

To the admittedly limited extent I know the histories of ancient China, Africa, or the middle east? We can make any manner of geographic and/or era normalizations...

Maoist China was certainly as repressive - and deadly - as most dynasties in ancient China... but honestly? I feel like if I could live another millenia - I'll be interested to see where China goes. An autocratic regime cloaked in the traipsings of Marxist ideology doesn't have a millenia ahead of it, I don't think... but, the forging of national identity into a single modern (in western terms) nation state, weaving, even oppressively, a pretty disparate - and enormous - ethnographic stew? Who knows. Hell, who knows what happens if Zheng He sails west instead of east... and rather than a sharp reversal of course, an entire generation of Zheng He's look west.

I understand that some sources make a good case that the Mughal plebe in 14th/15th century India lived better than the British commoner of the same period.

Who knows.

As the world gets smaller, peoples and cultures borrow from each other - expanding beyond modern history, including periods of which I'm fairly illiterate?

I don't see the "west" as any sort of final endgame... just another step in a global process that spans centuries.

Maoist China was certainly as repressive - and deadly - as most dynasties in ancient China... but honestly? I feel like if I could live another millenia - I'll be interested to see where China goes. An autocratic regime cloaked in the traipsings of Marxist ideology doesn't have a millenia ahead of it, I don't think... but, the forging of national identity into a single modern (in western terms) nation state, weaving, even oppressively, a pretty disparate - and enormous - ethnographic stew? Who knows. Hell, who knows what happens if Zheng He sails west instead of east... and rather than a sharp reversal of course, an entire generation of Zheng He's look west.

Asia Universalis launches next spring! You can sale to the British Isles and CB their land! Watch out for the Horde and Japan tho!

The leftist critique of Zonk's position is that (some) people have choices, and that since the beginning of civilization, they've continually chosen an elite rule over the masses. Any progress has resulted from resistance of said masses to their exploitation.

@realDonaldTrump
10h10 hours ago
More
Just spoke to the King of Saudi Arabia who denies any knowledge of whatever may have happened “to our Saudi Arabian citizen.” He said that they are working closely with Turkey to find answer. I am immediately sending our Secretary of State to meet with King!

It's a reality show! MBS just hacked up a journalist see the reveal tonight!

Note: I have been consistent in appreciating the few good things Trump does and in trying to support him as my president (his administration appointments and such). No one on the right here will ever acknowledge it, but most of them are frauds anyway.

Because your goal shouldn't be to fight Trump, it should be to have good and effective governance. Sure, those goals may often coincide, but that shouldn't be the point. In the very short term, it's maybe a good bet, but it falls apart quickly. And in places where both progressive and reactionary ideology propose wrong/ineffective solutions to problems.

*You're* interested in good governance, as are like-minded folks (PF, BDC, Lassus, Gonfalon, Greg, etc.), but the Antifa/Proud Boys street brawlers and their supporters literally just want to see the world burn. The true believers that is, not really the frustrated kids who get their kicks off extremist cosplay.

@realDonaldTrump
10h10 hours ago
More
Just spoke to the King of Saudi Arabia who denies any knowledge of whatever may have happened “to our Saudi Arabian citizen.” He said that they are working closely with Turkey to find answer. I am immediately sending our Secretary of State to meet with King

!

In other news, O.J. Simpson is just THIS close to finding Nicole's real killer.

Mass incarceration being at the heart of the rank injustice of the past 40 years. Chicago activists weren't overly celebratory at Van Duyke's conviction, knowing that tossing him in prison does nothing in itself to correct the everyday injustices meted out by an intact system.

This stuff is not mere rhetoric, but massively evident to folks paying attention. Like who here knows somebody who's a convict?

The comment was made in the context of how Trump would debate Warren in a hypothetical future presidential debate - saying he'd pounce on her claim to be Native American by producing a DNA testing kit. So, in addition to arguing that being between 1/64th and 1/1024th Native American, at best, doesn't make one an American Indian within the normal meaning of the term, there's also the matter of the conditions precedent not being satisfied. There's no real claim on any money here, just political sparring.

that's a real Nancy boy way of getting out of a bet. Real strongman you have there Clapper. Does his mommy still shoo away bullies for him?

Because your goal shouldn't be to fight Trump, it should be to have good and effective governance. Sure, those goals may often coincide, but that shouldn't be the point. In the very short term, it's maybe a good bet, but it falls apart quickly. And in places where both progressive and reactionary ideology propose wrong/ineffective solutions to problems.

*You're* interested in good governance, as are like-minded folks (PF, BDC, Lassus, Gonfalon, Greg, etc.), but the Antifa/Proud Boys street brawlers and their supporters literally just want to see the world burn. The true believers that is, not really the frustrated kids who get their kicks off extremist cosplay.

Or the old guys who excuse the lynchpin because a perfectly acceptable judicial nomination list comes with it.

I think voter fatigue and the rise of extremist parties are mutually reinforcing elements. Your tired of seeing the same old parties in charge, which leads to votes for alternative parties, which in turn leads to grand coalitions between the mainstream parties (since its too difficult to cobble together coalitions out of single issue/narrowly focused/extremist parties). So voter fatigue produces an outcome that just fosters more voter fatigue

I agree. The contrast to the United States is interesting. Essentially, the Trump administration is a coalition between the ultra-right and the old consensus-conservative party, much as if the old Gaullists had thrown in with Le Pen, or the various Christian Democrats on the continent with their respective ultra parties (German CDU with AfD, that sort of thing). In the US, the two-party system has absolutely shackled the electoral system, to the point where any alternative party movement is proverbially Quixotic and stupid. In that respect, I don't know which is better. A strong two-party system does not ensure against a really radical faction taking hold of one party and wagging the dog. But a multi-party parliamentary system also presents lots of opportunities for splintery groups to arise and try to parlay their power base into policy in ways that you mention.

Mass incarceration being at the heart of the rank injustice of the past 40 years. Chicago activists weren't overly celebratory at Van Duyke's conviction, knowing that tossing him in prison does nothing in itself to correct the everyday injustices meted out by an intact system.

Chicago residents were pretty celebratory, knowing that tossing him in prison means that he's in prison, and can't shoot anyone else. And maybe this makes it 1% less likely that another cop just shoots first and asks questions later. Do we put too many people in prison, and for too long? Yeah. And often for the wrong things. But 30 years ago, crime rates were really really high. Maybe it's just a coincidence that we threw lots of criminals in prison and crime came down, but it certainly seems plausible that there's a causal relationship.

I agree. The contrast to the United States is interesting. Essentially, the Trump administration is a coalition between the ultra-right and the old consensus-conservative party, much as if the old Gaullists had thrown in with Le Pen, or the various Christian Democrats on the continent with their respective ultra parties (German CDU with AfD, that sort of thing). In the US, the two-party system has absolutely shackled the electoral system, to the point where any alternative party movement is proverbially Quixotic and stupid. In that respect, I don't know which is better. A strong two-party system does not ensure against a really radical faction taking hold of one party and wagging the dog. But a multi-party parliamentary system also presents lots of opportunities for splintery groups to arise and try to parlay their power base into policy in ways that you mention.

I have actually been working on another OpEd that essentially makes this argument (though using Canada rather than the US as the counter-example). First Past the Post encourages coalition building before elections (within big tent parties), whereas proportional representation tends to put a bunch of parties into a legislature who then have to build coalitions after the election.

In aggregate I think there's more opportunity for paralysis or gridlock in the multi-party system, but as you say, there's no guarantee of success using First Past the Post, which has its own problems. If one of the two coalitions of your two-party system is captured by an extremist wing you're in some serious trouble.

Everything Warren said she believed about her actual genetics appear to be true.

The evidence that she ever benefited from it, or tried to, remains identically zero.

That should end the discussion, but then there too many Rays out there to provide much hope for that

She presented the evidence that showed her to be a liar. I'm at a loss as to why you think that helps her.

Even accepting the results at face value, as I understand it she's at best 1/64th Native American and at worst much, much lower than that, on the order of 1/1000th. Well, everyone is 1/64th or 1/1000th of something; that's not reason to claim a benefit based on it -- indeed, it makes one a liar to do so. Moreover a signature issue of hers has been that the privileged step on minorities on their way up. That's what she did, in a particularly egregious way. She's not only dishonest but dishonorable.

(As to your "That should end the discussion," the discussion was ended. Not in her favor, but it was ended. Then she re-started it. For what reason is not clear. There's no way for her to come out looking good here, at least not unless she's half Native American or something. Which she's not. At best she can fall on her sword and admit she's a liar, but good luck waiting for that.)

Yeah, it doesn't win over Ray, but I'm pretty sure Ray would sooner gouge out a testicle using an unrestored knife taken off a bog body before he'd vote for Warren, so I think she's right to be unconcerned.

If I were forced to vote Democrat she could well get my vote over some mainstream Dems -- e.g., Hillary Sanders, Booker. Maybe Harris too but I'd really have to pick through their platforms to try to separate them. But I wouldn't prefer Warren over Trump, no.

But again this elides the point, which is that having some distant relative of some different ethnicity in your lineage does not make you what that distant person was, and more to the point does not enable you to honestly claim that you are that ethnicity when applying for jobs/etc. It bastardizes what is trying to be accomplished with diversity practices.

The issue with Warren is not and never was whether she has some distant relative who is Native American. All of us have some distant relative who is something. The issue is that she used that distant relative to dishonestly claim that she was the ethnicity of the distant relative, in order to give her an advantage in getting a faculty job.

Good at the moment but it keeps changing – stay tuned for the UK to join Albania and Turkey as European members of NATO who belong none of the other three. The UK is already a bit odd in belonging to the EU and NATO without being in Schengen (cf. Romania, Croatia, Bulgaria).

Honestly Ray, I think Warren probably acted in good faith in the original lies and didn't think twice about the family mythology, thinking it made sense, being from Oklahoma and all.

The problem with this defense is that she flip flopped from white to Native American to white. Who does that, and why? She was white when applying for college and law school; then Native American when applying for some law school faculty jobs -- but not others. Snopes:

The legitimacy of Warren’s claims to Native American heritage has certainly been challenged by many critics, and it is true that while Warren was at U. Penn. Law School she put herself on the “Minority Law Teacher” list as Native American) in the faculty directory of the Association of American Law Schools, and that Harvard Law School at one time promoted Warren as a Native American faculty member. But specific evidence that she gained her position at Harvard (at least in part) through her claims to Native American heritage is lacking. Warren denied applying for special consideration as a person of Native American heritage during her career, and when the matter was examined in 2012 in response to Brown’s claims, people with whom Warren had worked similarly denied her ancestral background’s factoring into the professional opportunities afforded her

...

The Globe obtained a portion of Warren’s application to Rutgers, which asks if prospective students want to apply for admission under the school’s Program for Minority Group Students. Warren answered “no.” For her employment documents at the University of Texas, Warren indicated that she was “white.”

--

I note by the way that Harvard still has not released their hiring records with respect to her. Moreover even if it could be proven that her lies played no role in getting the positions she applied for -- it can't be -- even that is not the issue. The issue is whether she tried to gain an unfair advantage through these things. And she did.

Just spoke to the King of Saudi Arabia who denies any knowledge of whatever may have happened “to our Saudi Arabian citizen.” He said that they are working closely with Turkey to find answer. I am immediately sending our Secretary of State to meet with King!

It's a reality show! MBS just hacked up a journalist see the reveal tonight!

Maybe the SoS and the King can touch the orb together, and Bla'Zaroth will tell them the Secret Identity of the Real Killer. Both the journalist, AND Nicole Simpson.

Sigh.

Anyway, if I were debating Trump, I would tell him I would give him a million dollars, to the charity of his choice, if he could name the King of Saudi Arabia. It would be awesome to watch him mumble around it.

And then note that Ray makes the implication that it says what it actually does not.

My problem is not that people like him apply subjective standards that reinforce a preferred set of beliefs, it's that they try to pretend that they're above it and actually apply the same standards in all cases, regardless of the person or matter at hand.

The Cherokee Nation on Monday afternoon called out Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) for attempting to claim Native American heritage by releasing the results of a DNA test.
. . .
“Using a DNA test to lay claim to any connection to the Cherokee Nation or any tribal nation, even vaguely, is inappropriate and wrong,” said Cherokee Nation Secretary of State Chuck Hoskin Jr. “It makes a mockery out of DNA tests and its legitimate uses while also dishonoring legitimate tribal governments and their citizens, whose ancestors are well documented and whose heritage is proven.”

Hoskin accused Warren of “undermining tribal interests with her continued claims of tribal heritage.” He argued that DNA tests fail to distinguish whether a person’s ancestors were indigenous to North or South America and noted that tribes set their own legal requirements for citizenship.

Warren claims to have Cherokee blood. The Cherokee Nation requires a person to have at least one ancestor listed on a federal census used to allot Cherokee land in the early 1900s known as the Dawes Final Rolls. Unlike other tribes, the Cherokee Nation does not require a minimum blood quantum for citizenship.

Some advocates of Native American sovereignty argue that DNA testing is unreliable and point out that a DNA testing company in 2017 found that a pet Chihuahua had 20 percent indigenous ancestry.

Warren on Monday drew criticism from other indigenous activists. “No native tribe acknowledges DNA testing as a source for citizenship or even claim to native heritage,” said Rebecca Nagle, an indigenous writer, organizer and citizen of the Cherokee Nation.

“She comes from a well-documented line of white people and so there is ample evidence that all of her ancestors are documented white people on the census rolls, by their marriage and birth and death certificates since going back before the Trail of Tears,” she added, referring to the forced migration of Native Americans to west of the Mississippi in the 1830s. Nagle said many people who are non-Native have family stories about American Indian heritage “and the overwhelming amount of those stories are false and not based in identity but rather are based in a white entitlement to appropriate native land, native culture and native identity.”

Seems like Senator Warren may have created a bigger problem for herself.